JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged rejection of his candidature by the Medical Board and Review Medical Board. Medical Board in its report dated 19.09.2020 found the petitioner unfit for the following reasons: (i) Melanoma on Posterior Aspect of Right Arm. (ii) Haemorrhoids 2. Feeling aggrieved of above report dated 19.09.2020, petitioner applied for review medical examination; which was conducted on 05.01.2021 and the Review Medical Board, while giving clean chit for haemorrhoids declared the petitioner unfit for the post of Head Constable (Radio Operator) for having birth mark (congenital Melanolytic Nevus). 3. Mr. Ramit Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner inviting Court's attention towards photograph - Annex.12, submitted that the petitioner is having birth mark at his left elbow and it is nothing more than a cosmetic problem, thus, rejection of his candidature is illegal and arbitrary. 4. Inviting Court's attention towards the revised uniform guidelines dated 20.05.2015, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India for Recruitment Medical Examination In Central Armed Police Forces & Assam Rifles, he submitted that it is true that the petitioner is having a birth mark (congenital Melanolytic Nevus) but the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board have not recorded any finding to the effect that such birth mark will impede in efficient discharge of training/duties, which is pre-cursor for rejection of a candidate's candidature as stipulated in item No. 20 of para No. 6 of the aforesaid revised guidelines. 5. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents submitted that rejection of a candidate's candidature on medical ground is a highly technical issue, requiring expertise in the field of body science. He added that competent Doctors of Medical Board have found the petitioner unfit, hence, this Court should not interfere. 6. In support of his argument aforesaid, Mr. Rajpurohit invited Court's attention towards a Division Bench judgment dated 09.11.2017, rendered in the case of Hanuman Lal Jat v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1259/2017) and submitted that the best authority to consider suitability of a candidate is, the Medical Board of the respondents and private Doctor cannot ascertain the requirement or suitability for a particular post. 7. In place of para-wise reply, an additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents today. 8. Mr. 7. In place of para-wise reply, an additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents today. 8. Mr. Rajpurohit submitted that the respondents do not intend to file a para-wise reply and the additional affidavit so filed be taken as respondents' reply/stand, so far as rejection of petitioners' candidature is concerned and petition be finally heard/decided. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. A perusal of the first Memorandum/Medical Report (Annex.9) dated 19.09.2020 so also the Review Medical Board Report dated 05.01.2021(Annex.15) reveals that the petitioner has been found unfit with the following stipulation “congenital Melanolytic Nevus”. 11. According to learned counsel for the respondents, petitioner's case falls under para No. 6(20) of the revised guidelines dated 20.05.2015. 12. Relevant clause 6(20) of general grounds for rejection, relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents reads thus: “20) Any congenital abnormality, so as to impede efficient discharge of training/duties.” 13. In considered opinion of this Court, clause 6(20) of the guidelines dated 20.05.2015 is required to be read in its entirety. The respondents cannot pick some words (congenital abnormality) out of this clause and reject the candidature of a candidate, more particularly when said clause is stringed with further stipulation-so as to impede efficient discharge of training/duties. 14. A perusal of reports reveals that the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board have failed to ascribe the reason as to how the petitioner's birth mark (congenital Melanolytic Nevus) will impede in efficient discharge of training/duties. 15. Not only the medical reports, even in the additional affidavit the respondents, have not been able to establish as to how petitioner's abnormality namely “congenital Melanolytic Nevus” or birth mark in his right elbow will impede in or impair efficient discharge of his training/duties. 16. Adverting to judgment relied upon by Mr. Rajpurohit, suffice it to say that in the case Hanuman Lal Jat (supra), the Division Bench has given due precedence to the report of Medical Board and refused to interfere in the matter. But, the facts therein were altogether different. Petitioner therein relied upon a private Doctor's report, hence the Court observed that report of the Medical Board has to be given credence. 17. If present petitioner's case is considered, it is clear that he has not challenged the reports of Medical Boards as such. But, the facts therein were altogether different. Petitioner therein relied upon a private Doctor's report, hence the Court observed that report of the Medical Board has to be given credence. 17. If present petitioner's case is considered, it is clear that he has not challenged the reports of Medical Boards as such. The Division Bench judgment in the case of Hanuman Lal Jat (supra) does not apply in the present case. Further, Mr. Rajpurohit's argument that Doctors comprising the Board are more suitable to adjudge the suitability of a candidate, cannot be countenanced in the present facts. 18. During the course of arguments Mr. Mehta has not questioned the medical report given by the Medical Boards per se; the petitioner admits that he is having birth mark in his right elbow, but contends that the same is not going to adversely affect his discharge of duties. 19. In absence of any material to substantiate, rejection of petitioner's candidature is not only illegal and arbitrary but also contrary to the revised guidelines dated 20.05.2015. 20. As an upshot of discussion aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed. Memorandum/Medical Board Report (Medical Examination) dated 19.09.2020 so also the Review Medical Board report (Review Medical Examination) dated 05.01.2021 declaring the petitioner ‘unfit’, are hereby quashed and set aside. 21. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Head Constable (Radio Mechanic) within a period of four weeks from today, if he is otherwise meritorious and eligible. 22. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.